I just thought that if you took some of the posts here, and did a find-replace on “moral” to “fashionable”, they might make just as much sense.
Example:
Note that the flavor of objective [fashion] I’m referring to is not “There’s a magic stone tablet in the fabric of the universe, which humans can’t access (so if an AI finds it and it says ‘[Wear] all humans’ then I want the AI to do so).”, more like “Considerations (that move me to accept considerations (that move me to accept considerations (...))) that move me, in a chain of changing my [wardrobe] according my meta-[aesthetics], not by external accident”.
That’s the “non-relativism” bit. So you claim that if cosmic rays suddenly struck everyone in the world, making them believe that wearing colanders on one’s head was the most beautiful thing ever (with since aesthetic appreciation and all that), colanders would still be ugly in some real sense, and it would be a sad thing that knowledge of their ugliness was lost?
Also, nitpick:
chain of changing my [wardrobe] according my meta-[aesthetics]
That one doesn’t work, you lose the recursion. Changing your wardrobe doesn’t change the aesthetics that will change your wardrobe later on. Does it?
I claim nothing. I just thought it was an interesting line of thought, one that helped me see the meta-morality debate in a new light. Discussing a vantage point, so to speak. Sorry for bringing it up; I doubt we’ll be making any progress on meta-aesthetics, if such a thing existed.
EDIT
Downvoted for disagreement it was.
The key point in my argument was that morality needs to be objective because it leads to objective sanctions: someone is either imprisoned or not.
There is no such parallel with fashion.
I just thought that if you took some of the posts here, and did a find-replace on “moral” to “fashionable”, they might make just as much sense.
Example:
That’s the “non-relativism” bit. So you claim that if cosmic rays suddenly struck everyone in the world, making them believe that wearing colanders on one’s head was the most beautiful thing ever (with since aesthetic appreciation and all that), colanders would still be ugly in some real sense, and it would be a sad thing that knowledge of their ugliness was lost?
Also, nitpick:
That one doesn’t work, you lose the recursion. Changing your wardrobe doesn’t change the aesthetics that will change your wardrobe later on. Does it?
I claim nothing. I just thought it was an interesting line of thought, one that helped me see the meta-morality debate in a new light. Discussing a vantage point, so to speak. Sorry for bringing it up; I doubt we’ll be making any progress on meta-aesthetics, if such a thing existed.
EDIT Downvoted for disagreement it was. The key point in my argument was that morality needs to be objective because it leads to objective sanctions: someone is either imprisoned or not. There is no such parallel with fashion.
I didn’t downvote you.
What?